Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bills of quantities

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2010

HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/2010

The approximate area stated in the Bills of Quantities was a matter of description, not an error in firm quantities under the GCC; Hung Wan had priced the roof works on the contract drawings and specifications showing about 4,300 m2 and the accepted lump-sum price of $14,900,000 covered those works; the arbitrator was not obviously wrong and leave to appeal is refused.
8 Jun 2007

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV21/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because (1) a striking-out decision does not constitute a final judgment under section 22(1)(a) as required for an appeal as of right (it fails the applications test), and (2) on construction the BQ item unambiguously fixed a one-off extra-over payment rather than graduated per-depth rates, so the dispute is case-specific, raises no point of law of great general or public importance and the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success.
21 Mar 2007

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/2006

The strikeout order was interlocutory and therefore did not give the plaintiff an as‑of‑right appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(a); the issues raised were not of great general or public importance; on the proper construction of the specific subcontract and factual matrix the phrase "1.5m in depth (min)" placed the risk of additional toeing‑in depth on the subcontractor and the interplay between Bills of Quantities and the SMM/Particular Preamble depends on the particular contract terms.
24 Oct 2006

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/2006

Item 4 must be construed against the express measurement provisions incorporated into the subcontract: the SMM (as amended by Addendum No.6) fixed the unit for 'extra over toeing-in to bedrock' as per number of piles, the BQs were prepared on a per‑pile basis and special condition (j) re‑measurement related to the quantities as stated (numbers of piles). Consequently there was no contractual basis to award additional payment by linear metres for toeing‑in beyond 1.50m and the judge below was correct to strike out that part of the claim.
21 Feb 2006

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT76/1996

Item 4 of BQs 5 and 10 must be read as a fixed extra-over unit rate per pile excluding SMM 9.14 by virtue of special condition cl.1(j) and the language of the BQs; accordingly Sam Woo's claim for additional payments for excess toeing-in is unsustainable and those parts of the Amended Statement of Claim are struck out; proposed re-amendments are disallowed because they introduce a new cause of action outside the six-year limitation and are estopped by prior payment-in, and related finance/interest claims therefore fail.
22 Apr 2004

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD

Citation

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT101/2003

Leave to appeal refused because the Judge concluded the Arbitrator was not in serious error: the Arbitrator correctly held that contractual procurement constraints and the commercial realities of supplier pricing may be taken into account under GCC 61(1)(c) when it is reasonable to do so, that Boot was distinguishable on the facts, and that SMM was relevant but of limited influence where the item is measured as an enumerated whole rather than by component parts.
24 Nov 1997

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT94/1997

Leave to appeal refused: the arbitrator did not err in law in construing clause 59(4)(b) to require that the change in quantity itself change the method or economics of working so as to render the original rate unreasonable or inapplicable; no such change was proved and the one‑cubic‑metre point would not substantially affect parties' rights so leave was denied.
19 Jan 1984

MITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

MITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/1983

By majority the Court held that on a proper construction of the contract clauses 73–75 and the contract as a whole do not entitle the contractor to re-rate under clause 74(4) for the large ‘choice‑of‑design’ increases claimed; billed quantities were estimates measured and paid by measurement and the employer’s appeal is allowed and the contractor’s cross‑appeal dismissed.
10 Jun 1983

MITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

MITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL1/1983

Clause 13 makes the billed quantities the measure of the work included in the Contract Sum so that substantial automatic increases in executed quantities may constitute Additional Works/variations; such variations fall within Clause 74(4) permitting re‑rating (notwithstanding an extension of time under Clause 65(4), which is subject to other contract provisions); contractor is entitled to re‑rating and compensation under Clause 74(4) for losses causally linked to using excess quantities to cope with ground conditions; Site Instructions were not variation orders because the delegated authority…